I Thought That Taking Things Out of Context Was Illegal or … Something

Sometimes the lack of self awareness is just so BRIGHT and SHINY that no level of snark can do it justice. So I’ll just leave that tweet on its own. If you want to see the context, you can look at THIS thread and then HERE at the comment and then HERE for the Twitter feed and make your own judgement call.


About The Dread Pirate Zombie

Member of the Zombie Horde and Lickspittle Minion. Out to eat your brainnnsssss. And a few other sweetbreads because they are so nomm-y. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to I Thought That Taking Things Out of Context Was Illegal or … Something

  1. Note how you can only see the Twitter feed on an archived page, since the original has been taken down.

    Spoliation, anyone?

    Liked by 5 people

    • Neal N. Bob says:

      I can see the motion for sanctions and/or dismissal now.

      I can’t imagine that a federal court judge is going to look favorably on a plaintiff disappearing potential evidence in a lulzsuit that said plaintiff himself initiated. It isn’t a stretch to envision one or more of the named defendants wanting everything the plaintiff has written (in public or private) during the relevant period in discovery. The plaintiff being unable to produce it could be … problematic for him.

      I’m sure that Oliver Wendell Jones will disagree, but that’s just one example of how awesome he is.

      Liked by 3 people

      • popcornseller says:

        The plaintiff being unable to produce it…

        Ah, but that’s not true. After TDPZ wrote “That would be because I don’t memory hole everything” The BLOB himself said in a comment on BillySez:

        Neither do I. I have every word I’ve written. Not for public view, but I have them, as you will see for yourself in the very near future.

        Liked by 3 people

        • gmhowell says:

          I think there are some outlook.com emails that he may not be able to produce.

          On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Billy Sez – The Fevered Ravings of The

          Liked by 2 people

        • Paul Krendler says:

          I seem to recall a certain Dread Pedo producing version A of any number of legal filings and exhibits filed with the court, while opposing parties were served with version B of what purported to be the same legal filings.

          Could this be what DUMBFUCK means when he says we will see for ourselves in the very near future?

          Liked by 3 people

    • Jane says:

      Yes, but c’mon… could the negative inference really be as bad as the actual evidence? I doubt most people could even imagine such things.

      Good thing it’s all archived and re-archived.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Neal N. Bob says:

        My understanding is that if you’re even contemplating litigation, you have a special duty to preserve any and all material that might be subpoenaed during discovery, which would certainly include your public statements regarding said litigation.

        That raises what I’m sure I’m will be an interesting question for the court. Just how many blogs and Twitter feeds has the plaintiff had since he started threatening (again, in public) various folks?

        Of course, it almost certainly won’t reach that point, as Lulzsuit VI is broken beyond repair. It won’t survive even the most basic motion to dismiss.

        But seventh time’s the charm, right?

        Liked by 4 people

        • Neal N. Bob says:

          Also, the Court may infer any number of things from the repeated spoliation in this case. None of them are advantageous to the plaintiff,

          Liked by 4 people

          • Back when I was doing Records Management, we were taught that any missing documents needed for litigation were always assumed to benefit the other side, since why else would they go missing? It’s not like you throw out stuff that will support your own case.

            Liked by 4 people

          • Neal N. Bob says:

            Precisely, LG.

            Keep in mind that I’m a godless foreigner and American procedure may differ, but I have a hard time imagining that it does.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Neal N. Bob says:

          Of course, I anticipate that the defense of spoliation will read something like this; “Plaintiff is a recently widowed Vietnam-era veteran who has fought a heroic sixteen year battle with stage XXXVII Parkinson’s disease and suffers from diminished capacity and executive function. Accordingly, the rules need not apply to him. Also, the defendants are very bad people, so we can overlook this and award him their houses and wives already.”

          Or, more succinctly …

          Liked by 3 people

  2. Just A Thought says:

    Did you know Jesus was a liar? No farmer would ever scatter his seeds among rock. Nor was anyone so foolish to build a house on sand.


  3. onlooker says:

    I attribute the error to lost capacity for abstraction – I don’t know if he’s getting worse, but he’s not getting better.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. JeffM says:

    it appears to me that I am a victim of a CRIME in Wisconsin. Was the deed done in Wisconsin? Yes it was. Did it involve electronic communication? Why yes it did. Was it addressed to me? Yep, there is my name (mis-spelled but quite recognizable). Was it abusive? I should say so: calling me a liar. All the elements of the crime are patently clear.

    But wait. Perhaps the perpetrator can get off on an insanity plea. It does seem that the line between satirical fiction and reality has escaped it.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. JeffM says:

    Oh by the way, if the plaintiff really does have everything, I am guessing that there will be an “I want it all, Bill” motion not long after the summons are served.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Pingback: Reading Comprehension is FUNdamental | Billy Sez – The Fevered Ravings of The Cry-Bully Cyberstalker Wm. Schmalfelddt

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s